Lists are a guilty pleasure of mine—one of many. I keep all sorts of lists, from groceries to what to take on an upcoming trip, from all the lottery scratchers I’ve bought (and lost money on) to my CD collection (by genre and then alphabetically by composer). If a magazine, newspaper, or internet article that has “10 Best” in front of it, you can bet I’m going to read it. The end of the year is a lister’s paradise; every type media has its lists. Okay, most of them are just plain silly (does one really need to know the ten worse Canadian cities to visit?). I read them anyway. But some have to be taken a bit more seriously; when The New York Times lists the ten best books of the year (they also do the 100 best books of the year) one had best pay attention, even if, depressingly, I haven’t read any of them.
And right now one of The Guardian’s (theguardian.com/us) book bloggers, Robert McCrum, is running a list of 100 of the best novels in English. Frustratingly, he’s only releasing one a week, moving historically from the past to the present. So every Monday my little coffee klatch gathers around the latest release to see if we have read it, or, more importantly, see if we approve of his selection. And sometimes, to marvel that he lists a book that we (usually I) have never heard of.
McCrum’s surprising first selection (remember, this is historical, not in order of preference) was The Pilgrim’s Progress, by Paul Bunyan. After a little reflection, I agreed with this. I read this novel as a teenager and thinking back as I read McCrum’s short essay (which accompanies each release), I was flooded with memories of the novel, even after all these years. I won’t read it again, but it’s nice that 50 years later it has stuck with me. Some of the selections are obvious choices and couldn’t be left off: Gulliver’s Travels; The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman; Frankenstein; Moby Dick; others are expected authors, but perhaps not the work I would have chosen: Jane Austen’s Emma rather than Mansfield Park; David Copperfield rather than Great Expectations.
Some are just plain head-scratchers (for me, anyway): Edgar Allen Poe’s only novel, The Narrative of Gordon Arthur Pym, is included; Little Women by Louise May Alcott; and the Sign of the Four by Author Conan Doyle (a terrific novel, to be sure, but one of the best 100 ever?). Wind in the Willows comes in at number 38, and what a terrific novel it is, but to make the final cut? Other great books are going to have to be eliminated for these, and I’m not entirely comfortable with that.
And then there are books I’ve never even heard of. I expected a good many on the list to be books I’ve never read, but surely I would have heard of them all. Nope. Number 20 was Three Men in a Boat by Jerome K. Jerome. Who? What? Number 37: Hadrian the Seventh by Frederick Rolfe; never heard of it. Nor number 40, Zuleika Dobson by Max Beerbohm. At least I’ve heard of Beerbohm, even if I haven’t read a thing by him.
Some books on the list I’ve heard of the author but don’t know that particular work.
Released this Monday was his selection number 41: The Good Soldier, by Ford Maddox Ford. This is one I haven’t read, but at least I’ve heard of it. Everyone has heard of Benjamin Disraeli but how many people have read Sybil, McCrum’s number 11.
Which leads me to the book pictured above: The History of Mr. Polly. Eveyone knows H. G. Wells. How many know he wrote 50 novels! And not all science fiction. From McCrum’s discussion of The History of Mr. Polly I decided to read it. And what a delight it was. Mr. Polly is sort of an Everyman at failure, in his life, his work, and his marriage; early on he declares he “hated Fishbourne, he hated his shop and his wife and his neighbours. But most of all Mr Polly "hated himself.” But Mr. Polly is a master neologist. Some examples (I kept a list): sesquippledan verboojuice, eloquent rapsodooce, intrudacious, jawbacious, and retrospectatiousness. Spellcheck might not like these words, but I love them!
The History of Mr. Polly, a newly discovered gem indeed. And surely that’s the main function of my beloved lists.
Whenever I find myself not feeling quite sufficiently inferior, I need only read blogs like this to reaffirm my convictions. So many, many, many books I've not read and should have. Do the Oz books count?
ReplyDeleteOf course the Oz books should be on there. Besides, I read a lot but I don't do something you do: write and publish successful books. I am the jealous one!
ReplyDelete